Slashdot Mirror


Cord-Cutting in America May Have Already Peaked (fool.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Motley Fool: Cord-cutting has been a massive thorn in the side of pay-TV distributors and television media companies for nearly a decade. After U.S. pay-TV subscribers peaked in 2010 at 105 million households, about 14 million homes have cut the cord, according to a report from Digital TV Research. The trend has only accelerated in recent years. 2018 saw nearly double the amount of cord-cutting over 2017, according to Leichtman Research.

But 2018 might've been the pay-TV industry's worst year for cord-cutting. The U.S. will lose fewer pay-TV subscribers this year than last, according to Digital TV Research. And the research firm suggests annual losses will continue to decline next decade.

161 comments

  1. Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The U.S. will lose fewer pay-TV subscribers this year than last, according to Digital TV Research. And the research firm suggests annual losses will continue to decline next decade."

    Right. If you have a million customers and you lose half of them one year, indeed the losses you experience the next year from the half million remaining cannot exceed the half million you already lost since you only have half a million left. I know that's vastly oversimplifying the issue, but indeed if you have a smaller pool of customers and that pool shrinks each year, statistically you're going to suffer fewer losses. Less people to cancel plus the more you lose you come closer and closer to finding your solid "base" that make up your truly loyal customers--for better or worse.

    Whether this base of loyal customers is enough to keep the sinking ship from sinking faster? Well, that's yet to be seen.

    1. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, the demographics skew towards the old side. Over the next 20 years, many are going to die rather than cancel.

    2. Re:Maths! by gtvr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also how many new subscribers are they gaining? I expect kids these days aren't signing up to start with, so they can't cancel something they never started using.

    3. Re:Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It peaked at 105m. They havn't lost 52.5m.

    4. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it called when you stop watching TV altogether?

    5. Re: Maths! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      What is it called when you stop watching TV altogether?

      In Arrears to Utility company.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Denial.

      People who go on about not watching TV almost always turn out to be watching Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, DVDs, pirated movies and shows, etc.

      It's a version of hipsterism. You still do the same shit, but you do it in a slightly different way that you can rationalize as being okay.

    7. Re: Maths! by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If saving money is denial, then I don't want to face the truth.

    8. Re: Maths! by ebh · · Score: 1

      YouTube.

    9. Re:Maths! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      We cut the cord 4 years ago. My kids (age 15 and 11) have gone from only watching Cable TV, to watching Netflix-Hulu, to primarily getting their video entertainment from YouTube videos. They will watch cable when they go to their grandparents' house, but other than that they really don't care that we don't have cable. Every so often, Spectrum tries to win us back with "deals" along the lines of "only" $45 extra a month (for 12 months after which the price will rise, taxes and fees not included in this price). I laugh as I rip them up.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re: Maths! by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When someone says I don't watch TV most likely what they mean is I canceled my cable or satellite TV. It's less denial and more like when people call tissues kleenex even though it's a specific brand name. They watch netflix on the TV but cable and satellite has been just TV to them for so long that they don't associate the two.

      That being said I canceled my cable TV service a long time ago and though I still watch TV it just costs me less. I don't mind loosing sports and other channels I never watched to begin with. Probably the most significant change is I don't get a bunch of commercials and I can watch it on my own schedule.

      I had cable for the sports channels that my sons enjoyed but when they moved out I realized I really didn't watch that much TV and that expensive cable service was burning a hole in wallet so I canceled it and got a netflix account. Of course netflix is more convenient and has no commercials so I enjoyed it more and now I actually watch more netflix and hulu than I did cable.

    11. Re: Maths! by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not exactly. Even if you are watching streaming video, this is not necessarily TV broadcasting, as you don't watch your show in sync with all the others watching the same show. Yes, it is passive entertainment with video and sound, but so is watching old VHS, Super-8-movies or a DVD, which you probably won't call "TV" either.

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place (from greek: teleos, far away, and latin: vision, view). And even if the show or movie you are watching was prerecorded, it gets send to all viewers at exactly the same time, so you are still televiewing it, and there is no stop, rewind or anything. If you miss a second, it stays missed, and you can't rewatch it. Netflix, Hulu, Youtube or whatever you call them are totally asynchronous. They are not "far away viewing" something in realtime. You can stop the show and continue at any moment you like.

      So stop calling Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, DVDs, pirated movies and shows, etc. TV. Those are the epitomes of Not-TV. All they have in common with TV is that they combine audio- and video signals.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re: Maths! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Perhaps. I went many years without watching any though - better things to do with my time. Eventually commercial-free, on-demand streaming with far more interesting programming than available on TV lured me back into the video-entertainment fold, though I still average far less screen-time than before I gave up TV.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it called when you stop watching TV altogether?

      Getting a life.

    14. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you are watching streaming video, this is not necessarily TV broadcasting, as you don't watch your show in sync with all the others watching the same show.

      Yeah, but that's been a thing since VCRs appeared in the 1970s. Watching out-of-sync isn't the same as not-watching-TV. Society has been slowly getting used to the idea that not everyone watches the same things (or at the same times) for a few decades now, and it's not really related to whether or not people are watching something. Streaming video (such as youtube) is TV, 100%. It's not even close to not being TV.

      so is watching old VHS, Super-8-movies or a DVD, which you probably won't call "TV" either.

      Nearly everyone would call that watching TV.

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place

      No, it stopped having to be realtime in the 1970s. If you taped a Doctor Who episode on a 1979 evening and then watched it the next day, you were watching TV, at least in the parlance of the times. Everyone watching you would say you're watching TV.

      So stop calling Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, DVDs, pirated movies and shows, etc. TV.

      I'm not going to stop calling watching TV watching TV. It's still watching TV and we're not going to completely change the entire meaning of the language just to accomodate a religious fringe group who is weirdly obsessed with lack-of-timeshifting. The only people to whom the issue isn't completely irrelevant are sportsfans.

      If you're argung from a sports-specific viewpoint, then just come out and say it. But you'll still be wrong. It's still TV even if it's last night's game.

    15. Re: Maths! by PPH · · Score: 2

      No, it stopped having to be realtime in the 1970s.

      This.

      I have rabbit ears and a PVR. I've 'watched TV' this way since the 1980's. Back then, the broadcast industry pitched a bunch of propaganda that this wasn't legitimately 'watching TV' because they were in a war for eyeballs with competitors. One network would schedule their hit show opposite that of another to capture their viewers. Huge amounts of effort went into program planning for exactly this purpose. So they could command more from the pool of advertising dollars.

      I remember in the 1980's, one of our local independent stations aired good movies in the middle of the night. They called it VCR Theater. Network broadcasters raged. They were 'stealing' viewers in a way that their planners couldn't work around.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have subscriptions for Netflix, Amazon, hulu, cbs, Philo. Ends up costing waay less than the $300/month I was paying for cable TV. Of course I had to pay extra for my Internet so I don't get charged extra when I go over my bandwidth.

      Combined with PlayLater and its a pretty decent setup that even my father-in-law prefers after he got tired of rebooting his DVR when it would stop working properly. Plus there are problems sometimes watching some premium channels which of course is always when you finally find the time to actually sit back and relax and enjoy some viewing time.

      Roku is so friendly, everytime he wants to watch a show he just uses voice search to find it and go straight to it.

    17. Re: Maths! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place (from greek: teleos, far away, and latin: vision, view).

      I don't think it does. Examine the phrase/initialism CCTV, for example; closed circuit television. Only it's not from far away. I think a television is an object, and watching stuff on the television is watching television. I don't think it matters if it's time-shifted. We have a name for the thing you describe, and it is "broadcast television".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Maths! by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you are correct and they are not counting the people who never get cable.

    19. Re: Maths! by luther349 · · Score: 1

      dvds are still a great way to get tv and movies. hit the thrift shops relly the ones in major citys. you will find entire seasons of shows on dvd for a few $ vs the insane prices new,

    20. Re:Maths! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There are still issues with streaming services and new ones creeping up.
      For example.
      Disney+
      CBS All Access

      Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime/iTunes had been spots where you can get most of your content with one bill. However with these network only Streaming Sites, we are creating a case where we are paying near full cable price for less content, and canceling is a hassle multiplying itself.

      Plus streaming sometimes forces us to stick to watching the shows we saw all the time, and never getting into something new.

      That said, the biggest issue with Cable TV is the fact that there isn't much diversity on it. Just countless channels showing the same show all day.
      It isn't like Cable TV 20/30 years ago. Where they had more diversity, even if they were less popular shows.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They called it VCR Theater.

      Someone there obviously "got it".

      Personally I started making the transition about 15-20 years ago when DVRs for the masses finally were available (via the TiVo Series 2).

      First moving to Time Shifting, then once Netflix/Amazon/Hulu hit their stride somewhere around 8-10 years ago I finally "cut the cord".

      Zero regrets.

      Cheaper per month "recurring costs", way more content than I realistically have time to consume, and best of all, without Cable's involvement it is all so much more portable to a phone/tablet/computer when I'm going to be traveling, so I no longer am stuck in front of the TV to watch the content.

    22. Re: Maths! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The only way to get rid of Comcast, I guess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re: Maths! by Solandri · · Score: 2

      My cable TV viewing pattern is extremely uneven. I'll watch it a lot for a month, then watch nothing for 2-3 months (like literally, the TV does not get turned on for months). So I'd been itching to cancel. Originally I was going to set up an antenna to pick up over-the-air signals for free local channels, since like you I subscribe to several movie services. But it turns out there's a hill between my house and the TV stations' antennas. When DirecTV Now offered their intro Go Big plan for life for $35/mo, it had every channel I occasionally watched so I jumped on it (it's since gone up to $40/mo, but I've been grandfathered in so still get channels the service has since dropped, like Discovery). I make enough that I can stomach $40/mo even if I don't watch TV that month. And most of the shows I watch can be viewed directly from the channel's Roku channel using my DirecTV Now login, so I don't have to deal with the DirecTV Now app's slow channel service and buffering issues.

      Unfortunately, due to my city government granting a cable monopoly in the area, it hasn't saved me as much as I'd hoped. I was originally on a $139/mo basic cable + Internet plan ($69/mo for 12 months promo period). When I canceled cable TV and retained only the Internet portion, it was $69/mo. For a net savings of $30/mo. In the three years since I canceled cable TV (I canceled it before I got DirecTV Now), my Internet service has gone up in price to $79/mo, then $84/mo, currently $89/mo, and they notified me last month that it'll be going up to $94/mo. It's increasing at over 11% per year, or more than 4x the rate of inflation. So three years after cutting the cord, my net outlay for Internet + TV will be only $5/mo less than it was when I subscribed to cable TV.

      I suppose it would've been even worse if I'd stayed with cable TV - the TV + Internet plan I used to have is now $240/mo after promo period. But it still feels like I haven't really saved much by cutting the cord. And I don't think I could stomach dropping back to DSL speeds to reduce my Internet bill (the local phone company's fiber rollout seems to have stalled, as some of the city is covered by fiber but I've been waiting for 5 years for fiber to become available at my address). So basically it seems the cable TV companies are just responding to people cutting the cord by cranking up the prices on the people who still subscribe to them - whether it be cable TV and Internet. Resulting in very little cost savings from cutting the cord if you still have to use the cable company for Internet.

    24. Re: Maths! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Also, the demographics skew towards the old side. Over the next 20 years, many are going to die rather than cancel.

      The only way to get rid of Comcast, I guess.

      One would think... Comcast Refuses To Believe My Father Is Dead
      (Note: This is from 2010, so Comcast may be better or worse now -- taking bets on which.)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped watching broadcast TV back in the 90s when Batman the Animated Series ended. It made me mad, and there was nothing else worth watching at the time. Or the next few years. And then I quit caring. Wasn't available in the dorms when I was in college, and when I got out I never bothered to get it. Didn't even get a home internet connection, since I had unlimited cell data and the phone was also a modem. Wasn't fast but it was good enough (especially since I came from dial-up), and I usually didn't want to deal with computers when I wasn't at work anyway.

      I do watch some DVDs or Blu Rays from time to time, but can easily go weeks without watching anything, and if it's not completely engaging I'll usually fall asleep.

      Anyway, two years ago I finally got FIOS to the house for the girlfriend, and a) it's unreasonably expensive, and b) it's actually slower than the current 4g data where I live. It sucks. The only competitor around here is Cox cable, whose pricing is the same, and I hear they're even worse.

    26. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference: the number of ads I am watching is exactly zero. And that's the way things are going to remain on my side.

    27. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a bot - it would be difficult for a human to spout so much nonsense in two lines.

    28. Re: Maths! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Not all video entertainment costs money. Hell I watch more Youtube then anything these days; although I do pay for YouTube Premium, the option to watch free is there. Same with OTA broadcasts, Crackle, the Roku channel, or less legally, the Bittorrent option.

      Granted, I'm not so poor that I have to worry about the cost of a few pay TV services (a Netflix subscription for a whole month costs about the same as going out to lunch), but still even behind the "I'm saving money." argument its still mostly about being trendy.

      It's an old article but a good one:

      https://www.theonion.com/area-...

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    29. Re:Maths! by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Comcast, umm I mean Xfinity, or whatever they want to call themselves these days keeps sending me an offer for $5 more I can get basic cable! Those go straight into the shredder. I've even had someone stop by and offer us that deal; to which I've stated that even if they paid me $5 a month, I still wouldn't take their cable.

      I also canceled AT&T DSL (1.5Mbit was too slow to stream) and DirectTv (I can't even begin to explain how bad AT&T messed that up). AT&T keeps hounding me with deals to the point where it's almost free as well, again I will not go back even if they offer to pay me. (As an aside, the DSL portion took nearly 5 months to remove from my bill, because AT&T I guess?)

      I'm pretty happy with a $30 60Mbit connection (sadly from Comcast), and a $35 streaming service which includes DVR and channels for the kids. The money I'm not paying AT&T I'm using to buy a few DVD sets a month and stock up on content. When prices for Internet and Streaming get above my threshold of pain, I'll cancel both and bing on my stock of DVD's. I'll then use the extra money to buy even more physical content as I see cable and streaming as throwing away money on something I can never own.

      My observations for the media industry in general are that ABC, NBC, and Fox seem to get the streaming idea and there are free services for those, but CBS is out of their mind if they think I will pay anything for their content. Disney seems to be churning out the crap to fill more channels so they can command a higher price but the things that made their channels attractive in the first place no longer exist (I'm talking about classic cartoons or movies), so the rat isn't getting a dime from me. Netflix, Hulu, Apple, Amazon, etc those are nice but the content revolves so fast that a series you start watching today may not be there next week, so again no thanks. Premium services such as HBO might be worth it, but I'm not interested in anything they have to offer at the moment. The stuff I am interested in I can pick up in a few years in the bargain bin for $20 or less (commercial free and playable on any device I want).

      The media companies seem to think I'm a slot machine and will keep paying for the same content over and over again, but there are other things competing for my attention (games for one). While they may enjoy a period where things slow down as far as cancellations, eventually without new gains the current set of users won't support their model and things will collapse. It is only a matter of time.

    30. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it called when you stop watching TV altogether?

      Will never happen. People don't even look up from their phones anymore let alone a television of some sort. We can't stop staring at the screen and Governments and Corporations know this.

    31. Re: Maths! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      What do you calling watching a DVR though?

      Why does the _medium_ matter?

      i.e. If I stream a TV show, that I *could* have watched earlier "live" but didn't die to scheduling, is that still considered TV? Why or why not?

      Is Television only reserved for "live" showings?

       

    32. Re: Maths! by mt2mb4me · · Score: 1
      A+ shitpost

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place (from greek: teleos, far away, and latin: vision, view). And even if the show or movie you are watching was prerecorded, it gets send to all viewers at exactly the same time, so you are still televiewing it, and there is no stop, rewind or anything. If you miss a second, it stays missed, and you can't rewatch it. Netflix, Hulu, Youtube or whatever you call them are totally asynchronous. They are not "far away viewing" something in realtime. You can stop the show and continue at any moment you like.

      Your whole argument is that more than one person is watching it in real time, and that you cannot pause. But the "remote viewing" box you describe, will watch content that was not locally created, but made far away. there is no implied real-time in the term television. I mean heck, With all the subscribers of You-tube, Hulu, netflix, etc, there is a good chance someone else is watching exactly what I am watching when I am watching it. Which would reduce your argument down to the ability to pause and rewind. If that is the case TV really only exists in a very small portion of the USA, as most people who have TV have it with some form of DVR that allows you to pause live TV in real time. Also, notice how I use the term "Live TV" it's almost as of TV isn't in its native state, Real time.

    33. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it stopped having to be realtime in the 1970s. If you taped a Doctor Who episode on a 1979 evening and then watched it the next day, you were watching TV, at least in the parlance of the times.

      Interesting, I grew up in the Netherlands, there watching the next day would be called watching a video recording. Else people would wonder on what channel they'd be airing the show from yesterday evening...
      Sure, it'd still be called watching TV, because video recordings could only be displayed on TV.

      As in: watcha watching, the answer would be: TV.
      As in: wasson then? The answer would be: nothing, I'm watching a recording of yesterday.

    34. Re:Maths! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I actually tried CBS' streaming service when it first came out. I cancelled before the free trial was over. It had too many ad breaks (even more than Hulu) and was very light on content. They would claim to have all the favorite shows and then it would turn out that this was only a couple of seasons. I couldn't even catch up on CBS shows I fell behind on.

      I'll admit that I like Disney's content. From the classic stuff to their acquisitions (Star Wars, Marvel), Disney+ is definitely going to be a service I try out. Whether I'll pay for it will depend on the content, price, and interface.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  2. Oldskool TV is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The older generation may be hanging on to oldskool TV, but young people are doing the netflix/amazon/youtube thing.Watch what you want, when you want.

    1. Re: Oldskool TV is done by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Meh, I'm "older" and I finally cut the cord Saturday. Gave Comcast all their gear back.

      Other than the amazing world of gumball, the odd adult swim thing and f1 racing I wasn't watching tv at all

      What killed tv for me was the reality shows. Killed it dead.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  3. It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For most people, cutting the cord means managing multiple subscriptions to various content providers, paying much more for each piece of content than they previously were, and in addition maintaining a good broadband internet connection, likely with the same company they were attempting to 'cut the cord' from. The only way I've been able to make this even partially work is by selecting a single content provider for and only paying for a month, and then binging on their shows until I'm through everything I want to see, and then canceling and switching to the next one. The ability for choice and variety kind of goes out the window unless you are willing to pay more in the end than you ever were when you were corded.

    1. Re:It's too much of a PITA by supremebob · · Score: 1

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      Soon, you'll get to add Disney TV and Apple TV + to that list. Add up all those subscription fees, and now you're paying a hell of a lot more than you paid for cable.

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

    2. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will also increase the amount of piracy of TV shows.

    3. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      At a certain point, you have to decide what you wantversus what you can live with and afford to pay for.

      Me, I cancelled cable, and have only Netflix ... if I can't watch it there, and if I'm not willing to buy it on DVD, it doesn't exist and I don't care.

      I'm not paying for half a dozen subscriptions, that would defeat the purpose of cutting my expensive cable subscription.

      I have only so much time to watch stuff, and only so much willingness to shell out for more subscriptions. For me it's Netflix or nothing, because I have no intention of getting sucked into a bunch of individual subscriptions, I'll simply not watch the shows and not miss them.

    4. Re: It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not a la carte. Thatâ(TM)s having to pick a package that contains one of the 5 things you want. You still get 100lbs of garbage you didnâ(TM)t want on Hulu, amazon and Netflix. Buying HBO is the closest to a la carte and no one wanted a separate login and app for each âoepackageâ either.
      See, it was supposed to be âoeI want a ln integrated guide and DVR for HBO, local channels, Cinemax, Comedy Central, HGTV, Discovery, History, ESPN and Velocity channel for some reasonable charge per channel.

      Not 9 channels of ESPN with one dedicated to curling and gender equality and mother with sportscasters race baiting and pimping gun control debates on two of them all in a stupid app with username and password to keep up with on a totally separate bill and an app that needs permission to your microphone and camera written by North Koreans.

    5. Re:It's too much of a PITA by darthsilun · · Score: 5, Informative

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      Except this isn't A la carte
      What I wanted back then was a la carte pricing and selection from my cable tv provider. I didn't want to pay $150/month for a package with, e.g. BBCAmerica with a mandatory ESPN that I knew was adding $30/month to the package.
      But ESPN had cut a side deal with Comcast and there was no package with BBCAmerican without ESPN.
      You can try to redefine what a la carte meant. But AFAIC this isn't a la carte.

    6. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on how much TV you watch? I watch probably 1-2 hours of TV per week, so having a single subscription or two to focus on the shows I'm most interested in makes a lot of sense for me, and is a HUGE cost-savings. My "to watch" queue fills faster than my TV watch rate does so I'll be good spending my $10 for "all the TV I care to watch" for the foreseeable future.

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    7. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      Soon, you'll get to add Disney TV and Apple TV + to that list. Add up all those subscription fees, and now you're paying a hell of a lot more than you paid for cable.

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      Or you just go old school .. accept what you can get OTA and when there isn't anything on to watch .. read a book, go for a walk or have sex with your significant other ..

    8. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      Soon, you'll get to add Disney TV and Apple TV + to that list. Add up all those subscription fees, and now you're paying a hell of a lot more than you paid for cable.

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      We just watch less TV.

      We've got three subscription services... even they are not used much. When you're not watching to "see what comes on next" and just watching what you want to see, you end up watching less TV.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    9. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      People can get "something" a la carte, but I don't think that "something" is quite what they wanted. The preferred a la carte approach was meant to be that you go to single provider (whether that's cable like Comcast, or online like Netflix doesn't matter), tick all the channels/shows on their menu that you want to subscribe to (or pay as you go per movie/episode, again, doesn't matter) and you have everything you want. One supplier, one bill, all the shows you want, and - most importantly - none of the ones you don't just because they happen to be part of a bundle. As a bonus, if that could be without having to endure any more ads than strictly necessary to keep the shows in production as well, so much the better.

      I don't see this fragmentation is going to last. It's death by a thousand financial cuts; there's no way I'm going to subscribe to a service for a single show; I'll get that from torrents, and I suspect I'll not be alone once more people realise how much it's costing them for all their various subscriptions. That's going to make it very difficult for smaller providers with only a few shows so I expect cross-licensing to start appearing soon enabling the larger players like Netflix or Amazon Prime to provide shows for people that don't want any of the CSI shows but do want the new Trek, for instance. Better for CBS to have a slightly smaller slice of the pie than no slice at all because enough a viewers decided they'll just torrent the one CBS show they want.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    10. Re:It's too much of a PITA by hiroshimarrow · · Score: 1

      The advantage being that if i want to get get HBO Now for a month, then stop it after I've binge watched the latest season of GoT or saw a few must see HBO originals, I can. During that time, if I want to prioritize the viewing, I can disable my Netflix account, reducing my cost. After I am done with GoT, I can turn on Netflix, or maybe not - maybe I want to activate my account on Hulu again and get caught up on their must watch list. Once i'm done there, and I want to binge the new Star Trek, then CBS gotta-watch-it-all here I come for a month.

      With a little planning, I'm not billed for more than a month of the streaming service I choose not to be (except amazon prime because it's streaming service is just a byproduct of other prime services I enjoy as well). The point is, I'm never in for $50+ for the streaming services, because I manage my accounts to keep the costs down.

      Yes, some people will say $10 here, $15 there, $11 there... next thing you know you're at the cable subscription fee... but why? Because you mismanage your own resources.

      Stop being disingenuous with that argument.

    11. Re:It's too much of a PITA by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If you only want a handful of shows from the other platforms, you can usually buy seasons at a discount later on - streaming or physical. I must be watching a lot fewer shows than most people. And when I start a show, I'm usually watching all of that before I start anything else in the same genre anyway. I signed up for a 7-day trial of CBS All-Access last year and finished the one show I wanted to see before it cost anything. Get over your FOMO, it's practically a mental illness for some people.

    12. Re:It's too much of a PITA by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      If you are subscribing to all these services are you really cutting the cord? Seems to me all you are doing is sending your money to just different services. I subscribe to 3 services, Coursitystream, Netflix, and Hulu. I'm also watching more Youtube channels now. If it isn't on those services I probably will not watch it.

      My daughter added a philo subscription. Adding all that up it is still cheaper than what I was paying for with cable.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    13. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      When I cut cable four years ago, Spectrum wanted to charge me $115 a month for cable TV. Instead, we signed up for Hulu. We already paid for Netflix and Amazon Prime - the latter for free shipping primarily though I've grown to like their video offerings. I had a couple of one-time costs (an OTA antenna), but otherwise I was saving over $70 a month. Since then, the price for Cable has gone up much quicker than Netflix/Amazon/Hulu. Could I subscribe to ALL of the streaming services? Sure, but I don't need to. I sign up for the ones I want and that's it. The goal isn't to get everything that I could possibly watch on cable TV, but to get the shows that I'm interested in and that's it. I figure that I'm saving about $100 a month now over what I'd spend if I signed back up with cable.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >paying much more for each piece of content than they previously were,

      Are you counting content watched, or content available? It doesn't matter if I get 600 channels for $60, if I only actually watch 6 then I'm paying $10 per channel, everything else is just bundled noise. And a $10 streaming service is likely to have a lot more content available than one cable channel.

      And even that misrepresents it. The central questions are how much are you paying per hour of entertainment watched, and how satisfied are you with the quality of entertainment? And as a general rule I'm willing to bet streaming wins hands-down on both counts.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >I don't see this fragmentation is going to last.

      At least not user-facing. I could easily see a market forming for a bundling company that lets you just tick all the check boxes for the streaming services you want and sends you a single monthly bill. The Roku folks are probably well-positioned for such a thing - let them handle the nuisance for you, you just pick what you want and pay a single bill.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      At a certain point, you have to decide what you wantversus what you can live with and afford to pay for.

      Me, I cancelled cable, and have only Netflix ... if I can't watch it there, and if I'm not willing to buy it on DVD, it doesn't exist and I don't care.

      I'm not paying for half a dozen subscriptions, that would defeat the purpose of cutting my expensive cable subscription.

      I have only so much time to watch stuff, and only so much willingness to shell out for more subscriptions. For me it's Netflix or nothing, because I have no intention of getting sucked into a bunch of individual subscriptions, I'll simply not watch the shows and not miss them.

      Pretty much: if it's not available on Netflix, Vudu, Prime or YouTube then I simply don't watch it.

    17. Re: It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really got that streaming choice you wanted ! What a win.

    18. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all ESPN is nowhere near $30 per subscriber household per month. https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-sports-tv-future-spt-0828-20160826-column.html

      Second, if you are trying to get an ala carte package for a single channel you are not going to get anywhere near the price that the content provider charges the network for bundled subscribers. That is the entire point of the cable business model. Most people watch 10% of the channels, if that, but it's a different 10% for each person, so overall the price is 10x lower. You pay the same but get more options.

    19. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See WE get it YOU don't get it.
      "I gotta have my shows" -- Every perpetually broke retard with a premium cable package plus HBO and showtime back in the 90s.
      You don't have to have these things and you probably wouldn't even know they existed if you canceled.

    20. Re:It's too much of a PITA by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      Need? No. Want? Not even. I'm not Most People, I fucking HATE reality shows, I hate daytime TV, I hate cooking shows and other than F1, the Reno Air Races and a few other oddballs, I fucking HATE sports. Why should I pay to get all of that just so I can enjoy what *I* want?

        I have Netflix because legacy DVD subscriber here. I have Amazon because I have Prime from when it started years ago. HBO? No. Hulu? Ok I have Hulu. And Crunchyroll because I love anime. I don't have any other services. Just Netflix, Prime, Crunchyroll.

      Soon, you'll get to add Disney TV and Apple TV + to that list. Add up all those subscription fees, and now you're paying a hell of a lot more than you paid for cable.

      Will I? Says who? Says you? You don't know me. You don't know how I consume media. Instead of forking $x.xx to Disney every month, I'll do it as I always have: When they make a film I like, I buy it on blu-ray. The streaming is secondary, if ever, to me.

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      I'm enjoy it much, thanks, now that I'm free from the yoke that was the Comcast bill. For "preferred" cable or whatever they called their middle-tier service + HBO + Showtime and "HD Tech" and "DVR" and a 2nd outlet I never did use, I was getting nailed to the wall to the tune of $230. I estimate 50 to 75 of that was internet. Let's assume 70: I just freed myself $160 bucks.

      Of that $160, I'm already paying 12 for Hulu, 7 for Crunchyroll, Prime is included in my Prime sub, and Netflix DVD is 30. So a grand total of 49 bucks in "a la carte" internet "TV"

      That's 111 bucks I get to keep a month compared to last month.

      Do I "Need" any other services? Nah. I don't particularly care for any TV studio's current works.

      The only reason I have Hulu is cartoons.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    21. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people watch 10% of the channels, if that, but it's a different 10% for each person, so overall the price is 10x lower. You pay the same but get more options.

      Way to address the example while ignoring the point. The problem exists even for larger bundles.

      The not insignificant group of subscribers who don't care about sports channels and additionally want to avoid the $6-10 extra sports fee that cable companies charge (on top of the advertised cable package costs) mysteriously can't subscribe to anything beyond basic cable. It becomes less mysterious once you learn that Disney requires cable companies to include ESPN in all regular packages if they want to distribute ESPN or ABC at all. The money goes to Disney. Non sports fans "don't pay the same" or "get more options."

    22. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Take a step back and ponder for a moment: How much of this do you really want?

      I happen to have Amazon Prime, mostly for my shipping needs (in my country, without you can expect your stuff to arrive within 2-3 weeks). So I use this on the side for video. Do I get everything I want? Probably not. But then again, I'm not someone who MUST see "his" show. I watch what's offered. So I don't get to see, I don't know, Game of Thrones or Star Trek. Ok. Accepted. Whatever. If I really feel like it, I'll get the DVD box after the season is done. And I'll get that DVD box within 2-3 days of ordering it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re: It's too much of a PITA by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Because youâ(TM)re not paying for everything you have access to, youâ(TM)re paying your share of what you have access to. Which means that youâ(TM)ve been watching niche tv subsidized by people who just need 150 baseball games a week. Thatâ(TM)s what will hurt. Debundling means higher budget sci-fi is more expensive to watch.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    24. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon, Hulu and (I think?) Netflix already have options like that where you can now bundle in channel like "HBO" to their service.

      *THEY* are the new Cable Company (Comcast, Spectrum, etc.)

      The Cable Companies have been migrated to being the new Phone Company, though they still have to compete with the phone companies also.

    25. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That is true, but I was thinking of something more like "I want Netflix and HBO this month, but not Hulu or CBS", And be able to change that at any time by clicking a few checkboxes and agreeing to the new monthly bill.

      I could see the various providers doing cross-licensing or just account-management though, so you could have an account with your "always going to want this one" streaming service, and they handle managing all your "secondary" streaming services, as well as aggregating the various video libraries into a single unified browser, watch-list, etc.

      It would provide a nice value-added feature to help discourage you from making their service one of the ones you add or drop on a a whim.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    26. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over your FOMO, it's practically a mental illness for some people.

      Binge watching seems like more of a mental illness to me. I can spare an hour or so a day for some shows but I'm not going to sit in front of the TV for an entire weekend doing nothing but watching entire seasons at a time.

    27. Re:It's too much of a PITA by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I'm not going to sign up for CBS All Access subscription just to watch the new Star Trek, either. I would consider trying the free trial if the new Twilight Zone episodes were any good, though, but the reviews for the two episodes out there now have been lackluster.

    28. Re:It's too much of a PITA by supremebob · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that the original Apple TV model was perfect for infrequent TV viewers. Just subscribe to the shows you like, and that's all you get.

      Unfortunately, it was extremely overpriced. I'm not going to pay something like $30 to watch a season of Westworld in HD when I can probably get for that price on BluRay and probably get a better watching experience. No buffering, no weird compression artifacts in the video or sound, and no slowing down the Internet access for the rest of the house.

    29. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right; the money is diverted, and it can be more costly than just having cable with Internet. The blessing of these pay-per-service apps is that you have far more control on its navigation than standard cable, but it does come at a premium. I've also tried to maintain "no more than 3" services to keep the costs lower than cable with Internet.

    30. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got a point... right now, you'll need Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon, CBS All Access, HBO Go, AND Hulu to cover all of the shows most people want to watch.

      Soon, you'll get to add Disney TV and Apple TV + to that list. Add up all those subscription fees, and now you're paying a hell of a lot more than you paid for cable.

      People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

      Where's the Ala Carte TV? I've only seen ONE sort-of TRULY "choose your channels" streaming service, and their selection was ultimately kinda sucky.

      I would just like to get a streaming service with NO FUCKING SPORTS, FFS!!! To me, it is a block of channels I will NEVER (and I mean NEV-AR!) watch, but STILL have to pay for...

      So here I sit, STILL a Spectrum victim, cord-cutting diagonals in hand; but looking at at least three or four subscription streaming services (plus an OTA Antenna and DVR) in order to get all of what I am getting with my midrange Cable package.

      Not at ALL sure all this is going in the direction PEOPLE want...

    31. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good! Pirates are needed so that I can download the shit I want to watch!

  4. What do they call pay-TV? by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Honestly, when pay-TV refers to the old pay-TV companies and exclude new pay-TV companies, like Netflix and Hulu, then this way to count customers is bonkers. This is like when you have one bakery in a town which sells all the bread and you count how much bread and rolls they sell. Then a new second bakery opens, but you still count only the products from the first bakery. Suddenly people by less bread. And before you tell me that Netflix is not pay-TV. It is you watch it and you pay for it. Yes it is not linear and there is no classic programming. So what? It is just the modern form of pay-TV.

    1. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      Add to this that, for some insane reason, people consider Sling TV (aka Dish Network over the Internet) and DirecTV Now (aka DirecTV over the Internet) as "cord cutting".

      Buying an Internet delivered pay TV package is exactly the same as escaping your local cable or telephone monopoly on pay TV by going to DBS pay TV.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The distinction is not if you pay for it, so yes it is somewhat mis-named. The distinction is in the amount of lock-in there.

      With cable TV you need to have cable installed in your house and a receiver set up. Around here it's a 1 year minimum contract too. So just deciding you don't want cable this month isn't easy, it means you have to sent the rented receiver back and when you subscribe again it's locked in for a year.

      With Netflix etc. you come and go as you choose. It's just an app/web site so you can flick between the ones you want almost effortlessly. The commitment is 10 bucks or whatever for a month, nothing more.

      Speaking of inaccurate terminology, it's not really cord cutting either. A cord is a power lead, and all domestic versions have at least two wires in them. The actual thing being cut here is usually a coax cable with a single conductor and shield.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >it's not really cord cutting either

      You're right - nobody is cutting 128 cubic feet of wood, nor several strands of twisted or woven fiber, nor an emotional bond.

      Where electronics are concerned, the distinction between cord and cable is usually that cords are handled relatively frequently (phone cord, electrical cord, etc), while cables are typically mounted within walls or otherwise out of reach such as high-tension power cables.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Where electronics are concerned, the distinction between cord and cable is usually that cords are handled relatively frequently (phone cord, electrical cord, etc), while cables are typically mounted within walls or otherwise out of reach such as high-tension power cables.

      That's not true at all. It's a video cable, HDMI cable, coaxial cable, etc. Cord and cable are, alas, both overloaded words. They both have to refer to things which provide tensile strength, and also to bundles of wires (among many other things!) They also can mean exactly the same thing, rope made out of multiple strands. English is dumb, because it's defined by usage, and people are dumb. People with small vocabularies misuse words, and misuse becomes use.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual thing being cut here is usually a coax cable with a single conductor and shield.

      Which many of us can't "cut" anyway as it's supplying our Internet. In fact if I canceled even the basic cable channels my bill would go up compared to sticking on the combo plan.

  5. Not exactly great news by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    The cable industry lost four quarts of blood over the last two years but next year they're only going to lose another pint.

    Wooo! Pop the champagne.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Not exactly great news by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      This exactly. I don't see cord cutting as has reached it peak by along shot. If any thing, it is just now really beginning to take off. Cable TV, as it has been, days are numbered. Even the broadcasters know that. It is why you have Disney and CBS trying to start up their own streaming systems.

      I predict that that cable tv's current business model might have 10 years left. Then we are going to see a more networks start off with their own apps on a device like Ruko. Now the question will be if we will have to pay for all those services. My thinking is we will not. I doubt people will pay 10 a month for dozens of different channel apps and subscription service.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Not exactly great news by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      They are playing statistical games - or at least the headline/article is. We've hit the point where, unless the percentage of people leaving Cable skyrockets, it's basically impossible for the number of people who leave Cable in 2019 to be greater than the number who left in 2018.

      For example, say there are 1,000,000 cable users 10 years ago. Every year since then, a percentage of the subscribers leave cable, and this percentage grows every year by 10%.

      So year 1, 10% of 1,000,000 leave cable, for 100,000 leaving cable.
      Year 2, 20% of 900,000 leave cable, for 180,000.
      Year 3, 30% of 720,000 leave cable, for 216,000. - This is the peak number leaving cable. It will never go higher, though the percentage still grows.
      Year 4, 40% of 504,000 leave cable, for 201,600.
      Year 5, 50% of 202,400 leave cable, for 101,200. - Note how sharply the numbers drop, even though the percentage is increasing.
      Year 6, 60% of 101,200 leave cable, for 60,720.
      Year 7, 70% of 40,480 leave cable, for 28,336.
      Year 8, 80% of 12,144 leave cable, for 9,715.
      Year 9, 90% of 2,428 leave cable, for 2,186.
      Year 10, 100% of 242 leave cable, leaving no cable viewers left.

      Basically 2018 should be like Year 3 in my example above. I have heard no news that Cable is gaining ground in any way, so the only conclusion I can draw about "peak leaving", is that we've hit the point where the number must decline because, barring an unlikely huge jump in the percentage who leave every year, the pool has gotten too small for it to increase.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  6. Good loyal prole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep sucking at the teat of passive media, like a compliant, obedient citizen.

  7. Let's not forget... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that the Motley Fool is the stock market equivalent of the Onion. If you use their advice for more than entertainment value, you are the fool. I guess we will know in a few more years.

    1. Re:Let's not forget... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. The fetid stench of industry propaganda and spin control whaffs strongly from this piece.

      And the bad news couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people, those beloved telcos and cable companies, hallowed for their integrity, visibility of billing, advocacy of the consumer, and friend to local networks.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  8. It's happening more by andydread · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My 74 year old mother just cut the cord from AT&T/DirecTV to playstation vue. No she doesn't have a playstation. anyway her cost dropped from 125/mnth to 60/mnth. That was the driver for her to switch. If the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world keep gouging people then the exodus will continue. I guess I should follow her lead and drop DirecTV also but i haggle with them every 6 months to year to keep my price down to $64/mnth so I guess it's no rush. She was done with the haggling and just had enough. she still struggles to use the app and chromecast but she's determined stick to the man so she's getting the hang of it.

    1. Re:It's happening more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 74 year old mother just cut the cord from AT&T/DirecTV to playstation vue. No she doesn't have a playstation. anyway her cost dropped from 125/mnth to 60/mnth. That was the driver for her to switch. If the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world keep gouging people then the exodus will continue. I guess I should follow her lead and drop DirecTV also but i haggle with them every 6 months to year to keep my price down to $64/mnth so I guess it's no rush. She was done with the haggling and just had enough. she still struggles to use the app and chromecast but she's determined stick to the man so she's getting the hang of it.

      The problem is only going to move ... even if everyone cuts the cord for TV .. everyone will still be paying ATT, Comcast, Spectrum, Cox, etc $100-$200 per month, because they will simply give the content away and gouge for the pipe.

      ATT for example .. Giga bit service is $70/month if you boundle with TV or Phone, but without a bundle it is $100/month. I predict that ATT will keep raising the rate for internet services to offset cord cutting.. no change in profits .. just a redistribution on where it is coming from.

    2. Re:It's happening more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did the six month haggle with DirecTV for about three years, but this past year they just said no - the $108 a month was their price - so we dropped them. We did just pick up a streaming service from our cable company (Spectrum). For about $8/month on top of our cable internet, we get 20 or so channels of our choice including the locals. It's not a contract - we can cancel at any time - but they guarantee that rate for the first two years. It's a little clunky - bad interface and it only seems to run reliably in Chrome - but for $10 a month I'm not about to complain. We only watch a few cycles of news a day over breakfast and dinner anyway. My wife has become addicted to Buzzr TV, which is completely free.

    3. Re:It's happening more by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Try YouTube TV if you like the channel selection. It's rather awesome.

      We also use Netflix and Amazon (for shipping and renting on demand). Easy to navigate from the Roku, and we have the apps on a couple of tablets which is nice when travelling (offline Netflix is sweet).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  9. No it hasn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait till we have decent internet connections. And it would increase too if the ISPs/Cable operators didn't bribe their way into their local monopolies.
    Comca$t doesn't offer internet only connections where I live BUT - I can get a cable "package" that includes internet all for $99/month (introductory) which then goes up to $million a month or something after a year.

    In the meantime, AT&T is gouging me at $59/month for 1.5Mbps/.25Mbps on their shitty ratty blue and orange insulated copper. Although, their customer "service" reps will insist that I have fiber to the house. I guess the AT&T techs dropped bran cereal from the road to my house and that's what they mean.

    1. Re:No it hasn't. by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Wow that is steap. Pay 93$/month for 250Mbps/Mbps ( no mettering nonsens) and basic cable so I can’t complain, the us seesms to have rather expensive broadband

    2. Re:No it hasn't. by flippy · · Score: 1

      That's exactly one of the problems. In a lot of places, reasonably fast internet access is controlled by one, or at most, two, companies - one of which is usually the cable company. I guarantee these companies aren't going to just sit by and watch their revenues drop. They will (and have already started) to increase the cost of broadband to make up for that lost revenue. These are corporations - their only fiduciary duty is to their shareholders - not to the consumers.

    3. Re:No it hasn't. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      It's mostly a density issue, IMO. Broadband is relatively cheap in urban centers, but even our most tightly packed cities are far more spread out than the densest European cities. This raises prices to a degree. Also, my impression is that the non-urban areas in the US are also more spread out than those of Europe (we have half the people for a similar land area, after all), so the prices skyrocket even higher than their European counterparts.

      For example, I pay about $150/mo for 1gbps with a reasonable cap, and I'm in Alaska.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  10. Re:Oldskool TV is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The older generation may be hanging on to oldskool TV, but young people are doing the netflix/amazon/youtube thing.Watch what you want, when you want.

    I have been "oldskool" TV free for six years now. My adult children are cableTV free too. One had it for less than a year and then cancelled. The other has never subscribed since she left home. My at home kids are now very used to no cable and I cannot imagine either would be willing to forfeit $80 per month to watch the Kardashians or whatever passes for payTV these days.

  11. may have but likely did not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much more cable cutting to come
    100% certainty

  12. Well... by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cable companies saw the writing on the wall and increased Internet prices to make up some of the difference.

    And with all the new, separate streaming services programming has gotten fragmented and aggregators like Netflix are losing content left and right that all these companies want to keep exclusive to their own streaming services which leads to the al a carte people said they wanted, but also leads to death due to bloodloss from a thousand smaller cuts

    1. Re:Well... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      " separate streaming services programming has gotten fragmented and aggregators like Netflix are losing content left and right that all these companies want to keep exclusive to their own streaming services which leads to the al a carte people said they wanted"

      But that isn't "a la carte", that's just changing who is doing the bundling.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. My internet cost went from $40 to $60 over the past few years.
      They do not offer a cheaper plan. I've asked.

  13. it's just now heating up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was out to eat the other day when I overheard a lady complaining about her cable bill approaching $200. A person at another table told her to dump her cable TV package in favor of Hulu. A person at a 3rd table recommended YouTube TV.

    Cable cutting is about to become A LOT more common.

    1. Re:it's just now heating up by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Which is why cable companies are raising the cost of Internet access....

    2. Re:it's just now heating up by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Which is why cable companies are raising the cost of Internet access....

      Indeed- especially in places (most of the US) where one cable company still has a monopoly on broadband internet connection. I ditched my $70 cable subscription 6 years ago to go with internet and Netflix.

      Now I'm paying $70 for internet because one company has a monopoly in my area and can charge whatever the hell they like because there is no competition allowed by the government.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:it's just now heating up by tepples · · Score: 1

      one company has a monopoly in my area and can charge whatever the hell they like because there is no competition allowed by the government.

      How often have you raised this issue at town hall meetings?

    4. Re:it's just now heating up by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      "Monopoly" doesn't always mean "government-granted monopoly".

      There hasn't been a government-granted monopoly in the US for cable TV since about 2000. However, all the incumbents have a natural monopoly caused by the high cost of a competitor rolling out new service, and the ease with which the incumbents weaponize that.

  14. Re:Oldskool TV is done by tazan · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure about the older generation. Around here a lot of them seem to be using firesticks they bought at the flea market. They have no idea what they are or how they work, they just know they can plug them in and get TV.

  15. Cord Cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honestly I'm starting a new 2TB drive and buying movies and TV shows on DVD. Pop em on the hard drive and off I go in to no commercials TV land of my own choosing and not the cable provider who would dare send me a bill every month for TV that is mostly advertisements.

    1. Re:Cord Cut by luther349 · · Score: 1

      100$ a month does buy alot of movies. what are they digitally around 15$ watch.

    2. Re:Cord Cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ripping DVDs and Blurays. Keep the originals in their packaging in a closet as a disaster backup should the hard drive and it's backup fails. Keep everything offline so there's no chance of anyone ever getting in to it. Best of all if everything but the electric is out I can still watch shows and movies.

    3. Re: Cord Cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make one or two onsite backups (plus one or two offsite backups) of your DVD backups since it can take a lot of time to redo that work

  16. Interesting but not surprising by flippy · · Score: 1

    With the proliferation and fragmenting of content from streaming providers, I can't say that this surprises me.

    Given that one of the drivers of "cord-cutting is the desire to save money over the (frankly) ridiculous cost of cable TV, the fact that one now has to subscribe to more and more streaming services to get content is becoming more of a downside. As each new content owner makes their own streaming service with their own content and their own subscription price, it's becoming less and less of a cost-saving measure to go streaming-only.

  17. Telegraph abandonment has also peaked by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

    During 2018, hardly anyone switched from telegraph to WhatsApp.
    As less people pay for traditional TV, the rate at which people abandon traditional TV is bound to decrease. There is a finite number of subscribers, after all.

    --
    News for merdes. Shit that matters.
    Ask me about my sig.
    1. Re:Telegraph abandonment has also peaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And anyway, do people ever use Morse Code anymore? ..-. ..- -.-. -.-

  18. Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by unfortunateson · · Score: 2

    With the end of Net Neutrality (hopefully not permanently), your Xfinity cable internet service could decide that you don't get access to Disney and ESPN through streaming; your U-Verse service could decide not to let you stream Sling (owned by Dish Network) and so on.

    If an of the big ISPs cut off Netflix or Amazon, there'd be riots in the street, but the smaller players may get cut out if Net Neutrality isn't restored.

    Any why doesn't everyone do what I did and turn a $100 DirecTV bill (no premium channels, DVR, HD) into a $30 Sling bill (ditto)? Laziness. It's easy to keep that autobill payment on your credit card, it's hard to empty out a DVR.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the lack of net neutrality is very very unlikely to result in the scenario you are talking about, Xfinity blocking dish or disney is the QUICKEST way to restore net neutrality rules and give them more teeth than they ever had to start with.

      What probably will happen (and why I think certain politicians wanted net neutrality dead) is that ISPs will slowly start restricting access to free speech platforms in the interests of protecting us from terrorists, russians, bullies, biggots, or republicans. They won't block facebook, slashdot, or reddit, but gab, voat, chans, and maybe even discord could all eventually be blocked.

      If that catches on, then eventually the default for lesser known sites (i.e. not owned by a fortune 500 company, government or large institution) is likely to be blocked, at which point we will in fact have an internet that is owned by and fully controlled by corporate interests.

    2. Re:Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $0/bill OTA digital TV.

    3. Re:Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by PPH · · Score: 1

      With the end of Net Neutrality (hopefully not permanently), your Xfinity cable internet service

      I have FTTH from the local phone company. It was an uphill fight when Verizon ran the system. Because they were always cutting non-compete deals with Comcast (they promise not to do phones, we promise not to actually connect DSL service). But when Frontier took over, things got better.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key to this is vertically separate the industries. One company owns the lines/cable, other companies sell services on that cable.

      That's basically how dial-up ISPs worked.

  19. Re:Try to cut this by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    First Post!

    Swing and a miss

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. Peak cord-cutting? Not even close by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    Not if you go by me and what I plan to do.
    Once I get 5G in my area and a 5G phone I'm going to drop my cable broadband service like a hot potato and tether my home wifi to my phone and use my phone's data. No reason to have always on broadband when there's nobody home using it 10+ hours a day.

    1. Re:Peak cord-cutting? Not even close by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Not if you go by me and what I plan to do.

      Once I get 5G in my area and a 5G phone I'm going to drop my cable broadband service like a hot potato and tether my home wifi to my phone and use my phone's data. No reason to have always on broadband when there's nobody home using it 10+ hours a day.

      I suspect 5G will be more expensive than cable for a number of years still; but, it will be great to give cable a run for their money once it is established and prices drop. Of course, 5G doesn't work well in the rain, so it will be like the old satellite dish subscriptions that were around in the 90's like DirectTV where you lose connection when it rains.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Peak cord-cutting? Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect as well that 5G will usher in the next wave of cord cutting, cutting the cord on IP based services. If the cellular providers do it right with no caps and reasonable costs the cable industry should be quite scared of what they are about to face. With noncapped 5G services you instantly add another 3-4 "broadband" providers to the competitive mix. The cable companies will bleed IP based subscribers just as the telcos did in the early to mid 2000's with everyone cutting the POTS cord for cellular and voip services.

    3. Re:Peak cord-cutting? Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loss of service for sat during rain was such a myth that the cable industry pushed for their services. If you had satellite service that dropped when it rained then your dish was not properly installed/aimed. Basic inline dish aiming meters, as well as the aiming meters built into the setup menus of the sat boxes would let even the most non-technical user reaim their dish with a little patience. I had directv for nearly a decade in rain prone Florida without rain issues. Even during low category hurricanes I never lost service.

      I also installed my own dish, properly aimed it, and would tweak the aiming on usually around an annual basis due to small shifts from thermal swings or wind loading over time.

      The only reason i ultimately dropped directv is because I ended up with a job with the local cable company and got their comped services, Yeah the service wasn't as nice as directv, but you cant beat free service. By the time I left that job I had moved on to more streaming service than the classic linear tv services. I ended up just dropping my TV service than to continue having it at normal subscriber costs.

  21. Re:Oldskool TV is done by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    Ironically the cord cutting generation will still spend countless hours mindlessly consuming streamed content. They're just doing it on a different device, or paying a different provider.

    Just because we call the Boob Tube a "smartphone" these days doesn't make the consumers any smarter or less addicted.

    That is not at issue. The real irony is that the entrenched industry has managed to alienate their entire customer base and generally price themselves out of the market in the search for greater growth in profits. They have no idea what the true value proposition is for their own product. Growth in a mature market where most of the public is a customer can only be obtained by raising revenue through pricing per customer. They have made too many trips to the well and now the well is running dry.

    Sure. Netflix and YouTube are substitutes, but cable TV is declining because their business model is failing. Cable use to be a "must have" utility that you called upon move-in just like electric or trash service. Now it's a "nobody wants." As mind share dwindles, the hive effect diminishes too.

  22. Probably depends on how you calculate by houghi · · Score: 1

    If you talk in nummbers per year, it might be true.
    Next you can look at the percentages. Also look at the amount of new subscribers, remaining subscribers and what not.

    For all we know, the percentage of people leaving compared to people coming ion is rising.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. But Netflix sucks too by ruddk · · Score: 1

    I tried to watch some standup comedy on Netflix before I canceled my subscription. It was all very predictable and boring and safe. No one dares to say anything provoking any more.
    And most of the TV shows seems awful predictable as well.
    Well, there's not a shortage of things to do in the course of a day so it is not a great loss. :D

    1. Re:But Netflix sucks too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. I "cord cut" Netflix.

      For the few Netflix originals I might like to see, Netflix puts them on DVD and I can eventually get them from the local library.

    2. Re:But Netflix sucks too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to watch some standup comedy on Netflix before I canceled my subscription. It was all very predictable and boring and safe. No one dares to say anything provoking any more.

      Except for female comedians, they can say stuff that'd get a man banned these days but it's okay to have a double-standard because of something something patriarchy.

    3. Re:But Netflix sucks too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to watch some standup comedy on Netflix before I canceled my subscription. It was all very predictable and boring and safe. No one dares to say anything provoking any more.
      And most of the TV shows seems awful predictable as well.
      Well, there's not a shortage of things to do in the course of a day so it is not a great loss. :D

      Netflix is some pretty left wing kookie stuff. Every show has to work in a lesbian or gay angle, make some random connection to a left wing political agenda item - women can do everything better than men, guns are for losers (unless it is some female super person or cop), corruption from corporations, and middle age, white men are always bad
      The funny thing is that the left loves to say the government is corrupt and guns are bad line but then glamorizes shooting things up and over the top violence - like that crazy show about some serial killer woman that is super cool.
      The solution of course is that civilians can not have guns and we need more government. SMH

      It is just like republicans with free market and capitalism, but then they have some hard on to keep marijuana illegal.

  24. Re: Oldskool TV is done by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Cutting production costs to switch to reality TV means greater profits. Until nobody is paying for it, that is.

  25. Re:Oldskool TV is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah and you pay for each service 10+ credits each month. So how many services are you using? You ain't watching what you want, unless you subsribe to each service.

  26. HA HA cable won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck it, slashdot libtards.

  27. Revenge of "very oldskool" TV by Comboman · · Score: 1

    Actually, a big part of cutting the cord (to "oldskool" cable TV) generally includes free, over-the-air, antenna-based TV (i.e. "very oldskool" TV).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  28. asymptotic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, it's going to approach zero on pretty much the same curve we see everywhere else in nature?

  29. So ESPN can keep hiring Leftists? by WCMI92 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is great news for them. And the Rat party. They are still running communist retreads though...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:So ESPN can keep hiring Leftists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being a net negative to the discussion. Your polarized, barely-tangentially-related bullshit has made the world a slightly worse place.

  30. Re:Oldskool TV is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the amount of reality shows and advertisements increases every year, even us oldschoolers are cutting cord. The Youtube is already providing idiotic reality shows and ads, why would anyone pay monthly subscriptions to see them?

  31. Politics and awards go stale too by tepples · · Score: 1

    we're not going to completely change the entire meaning of the language just to accomodate a religious fringe group who is weirdly obsessed with lack-of-timeshifting. The only people to whom the issue isn't completely irrelevant are sportsfans.

    It's not just sports; political talk shows (such as Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity) and entertainment industry awards shows (such as Grammys, Emmys, or Oscars) also have a short shelf life. Political talk shows last longer than sports, maybe about a day, but they too go stale.

  32. All they'll have left are the elderly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 79 year old mother is the only person I know that has a Cable subscription. Everyone else either has some sort of streaming. I cut the cord in 2010 after I realized Netflix pretty much replaced my DVR usage. That was the beginning of the cord cutting era, and I'm a little surprised they've only lost 16 million subscribers. As the article mentions, the real problem is lack of getting new subscribers, not as much losing old ones.

    That's going to get worse as their subscriber base ages. When you're not replacing old subscribers with young ones, you're going to have a problem not with cord cutters, but with death.

    Phone service also went the same way about a decade ago with cell phone service, but it was an easier transition since there's very little change in the service from landline to cell phone.

  33. Cable TV Can Die in a Fire by hedge00 · · Score: 1

    The greedy bastards raise the price every year and have it saturated with advertising, 20-30 minutes every hour concentrated in the latter half. And the few good shows end up on specialty channels that cost extra.

  34. One third of cable TV is commercials. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    We cut the cord and saved $155 per month by leaving Mediacom. We switched to 24-Mbps DSL with commercial-free Hulu and Netflix. Any local shows are watched with a digital antenna, which gives a superior picture over cables compressed crappy image. Cable has turned into a huge con game.

  35. I have no choice. by romco · · Score: 1

    I can either pay $30 a month for cable TV and not get my downloads capped or I can pay $30 extra to have the download cap removed.

    --
    AdFuel
    1. Re:I have no choice. by Megane · · Score: 1

      Try to see if you can get a "super-basic" tier on the TV. In particular, if you get ESPN and don't watch it, you're being overcharged. The cable companies pay them a lot of money for being a default channel in a "regular" tier. If you watch local channels, try using an antenna, you may even get better picture quality.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  36. not cutting any cords [Re: Maths!] by XXongo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have to say I'm bemused by the phrase "cord cutting."

    Most people get internet through a wire attached to their residence. Usually it's the very same coax cable that brings in cable TV, and often from the same cable company.

    They're not cutting any cords. They are just switching what company is sending their feed through the cord.

    (And, amusingly, people who get television by subscribing to DirectTV, which literally does NOT have a cord, but comes in over the satellite dish... are not cord-cutters.)

    1. Re:not cutting any cords [Re: Maths!] by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Very clever sir, very clever, but its cords all the way down.

      DirectTV may get the signal from the source to the satellite wireless, but there's still a coax cable going from the dish to the receiver :).

      In all seriousness though it seemed to originally be moreso applied to be people quitting cable and satellite after the digital OTA transition (since the number of channels typically went up and the quality of reception was then able to match digital satellite TV), and it just carried over to describe people getting rid of cable/satellite for other reasons. Sort of like how the save icon is still a picture of a floppy disk despite the fact that almost no one actually uses floppy disks anymore.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:not cutting any cords [Re: Maths!] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if they are using wifi/mobile for their communications, they technically are cutting some cords...

      But I did encounter someone who promoted cord-cutting, but specifically meant moving to mobile Internet usage (or long-range wireless). They wrote articles for a tech site or something. It was amusing to see everyone in comments disagree and want cable/fiber Internet instead of exclusively mobile.

  37. Generational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Likely a lot of the Genx/Millennials have already cut the cord. What you have left are Boomers sticking with their old way of doing things. Expect the downturn to continue over the next 20 years as the Boomers croak.

    1. Re:Generational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being in my mid 30's many of my peers that I know (+/- 10years) do not subscribe to classical linear pay tv. Usually rather some kind of streaming service like netflix/amazon/youtube provides their "TV watching" entertainment.

    2. Re:Generational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly the only saving grace to classical linear pay TV will be the fragmentation of the streaming market with content producers trying their hand at their own streaming services and pulling content from the other streaming providers. Likely if they pull the content from other streaming providers they quite likely might do it to the cable companies as well. Why deal with getting only a percent of that revenue and dealing with annual contract renegotiations when you can just make the people come to your streaming platform and get 100% of the income.

    3. Re:Generational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect over the next decade people are finally going to get their ala carte tv services they have been griping for during the last 2 decades. Unfortunately they are not going to like the costs involved when every content producer has their own streaming service and you have to subscribe to 10+ services at $15-20 a service all nickel and diming you every month just to get all the content. And deal with the frustration of bad UIs and different ways of doing things across each platform rather than an all in one service that at least had a semi consistent experience across the entire lineup.

  38. Re:Oldskool TV is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cable's advantages used to be: More channels, The Shows you Want to Watch, Good signal, Movies-On Demand, Porn

    Now-a-days:

    - Netflix started killing "Movies On-Demand" and then Amazon and Hulu pretty much gave two more nails to the coffin.
    - Pornhub provides more content than you could possibly ever want, for less than Spice/Playboy Channel, or any other "Adult" channel.
    - The transition to Digital signals both led to clearer/higher quality signals in a lot of places, as well as more "sub channels" serving local/niche content
    - All of the above, combined with Hulu/Netflix showing seasons of shows where ever you want them (at a time when less and less people are watching on a TV), along with producing good original content which is catering to younger generations

    means that on the whole, there just is very little that "Cable TV" does better than a Streaming service.

    HBO recognizes this completely, and is attempting to cut the cord also with their direct "HBO Now" subscription service (available as an add-on also for Amazon & Hulu).

    Disney is trying to launch its own "Streaming Channel", and I expect it will follow the same path as HBO's.

    The cable companies had the opportunity to get ahead of this and produce a better service, but insisted only on trying to wring out the most profit they could from their customers. The result left an opportunity for a disruptive new player in the disruptive new phase of the industry and customers who felt no love for their existing service and happy to ditch them given a choice.

  39. Antenna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you try an amplified antenna?

  40. Re:Oldskool TV is done by tepples · · Score: 1

    Subscribe to a different service each month. Most Internet VOD services haven't given deep annual discounts yet.

  41. No C-SPAN on Sling by tepples · · Score: 1

    Any why doesn't everyone do what I did and turn a $100 DirecTV bill (no premium channels, DVR, HD) into a $30 Sling bill (ditto)?

    My roommate watches Washington Journal, C-SPAN's call-in morning show. Sling Blue + News Extra doesn't offer C-SPAN.

  42. Bundling may have something to do with it. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Eventually: internet will cost $80 a month and internet + cable bundle will cost $90 a month.

  43. Re: Oldskool TV is done by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Reality shows are killing cable for a lot of us. That, plus channel drift. Almost none of the cable channels are showing the kind of content they originally did. Try to find a history show on History, or a gardening show on HGTV, or anything other than law enforcement shows on A&E. It's all reality shows now!

    I'm tired of pawn shops, aliens, antiques, metal-working, hot rods, criminals, and real estate shows.

  44. Re:Oldskool TV is done by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Although I think television consumption might be going down in general (maybe with an uptick for online stuff like youtube). Because once you get over that first hurdle and cut the cord to cable then it's a much easier hurdle to cut back on hours-per-week of television viewing.

  45. Even Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast charges you a "Broadcast Fee" for TV even if you don't want it!

    https://www.tablotv.com/blog/pay-tv-companies-are-trying-trick-cord-cutters/

  46. Re: Oldskool TV is done by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Reality shows are killing cable for a lot of us. That, plus channel drift.

    I think the drift was caused by the reality show, and as another poster pointed out, the cost for reality TV is less than for "scripted" TV. So of course all the studios went for the cheapest which also panders to the lowest.

    Philo T. already had a dim view of his invention by 1969, but if he saw what's become of it, he'd die all over again.

    Internet's headed the same way, I"m afraid. The old forum "one guy says, the rest parrots" is well and alive and now a thousand-headed Medusa with Facetwit and Instadumb.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  47. Have you noticed...? by side.road · · Score: 1

    All the 'negative' coverage in mainstream news about cord-cutting the last few months? Even NPR has had a couple of articles. Seems that slamming cord-cutting has become all-the-rage. We cut (6) years ago, and the only thing missed is breaking news and perhaps the winter Olympics. Netflix and a Roku and we're good to go. True our internet feed comes from Spectrum but they're sole provider in this area.